Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Herodotus - The Histories
>
Herodotus, Book Four
date
newest »
newest »
I found the description of Scythian practices on those they defeat in battle (IV:64-65) absolutely fascinating. Obviously it's gruesome, terribly gruesome and inhumane. But the idea that they would drink their blood and turn their skulls into golden cups... makes some aspects of modern warfare seem tame in comparison.
Also, the Scythian gifts to Darius (IV:131-132) reminded me of this joke that I hadn't heard in years:Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to
convert to Catholicism or leave Italy. There was a huge outcry from
the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal: he'd have a
religious debate with the leader of the Jewish community. If the Jews
won, they could stay in Italy; if the Pope won, they'd have to convert
or leave.
The Jewish people met and picked an aged and wise rabbi to represent
them in the debate. However, as the rabbi spoke no Italian, and the
Pope spoke no Yiddish, they agreed that it would be a 'silent' debate.
On the chosen day the Pope and rabbi sat opposite each other.
The Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers.
The rabbi looked back and raised one finger.
Next, the Pope waved his finger around his head.
The rabbi pointed to the ground where he sat.
The Pope brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine.
The rabbi pulled out an apple.
With that, the Pope stood up and declared himself beaten and said that
the rabbi was too clever. The Jews could stay in Italy .
Later the Cardinals met with the Pope and asked him what had happened.
The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the
Trinity. He responded by holding up a single finger to remind me there
is still only one God common to both our faiths.
Then, I waved my finger around my head to show him that God was all
around us. The rabbi responded by pointing to the ground to show that
God was also right here with us.
I pulled out the wine and host to show that through the perfect
sacrifice Jesus has atoned for our sins, but the rabbi pulled out an
apple to remind me of the original sin. He bested me at every move and
I could not continue."
Meanwhile, the Jewish community gathered to ask the rabbi how he'd won.
"I haven't a clue," said the rabbi. "First, he told me that we had
three days to get out of Italy, so I gave him the finger.
Then he tells me that the whole country would be cleared of Jews
but I told him emphatically that we were staying right here."
"And then what?" asked a woman.
"Who knows?" said the rabbi. "He took out his lunch, so I took out mine."
Kenneth wrote: "Also, the Scythian gifts to Darius (IV:131-132) reminded me of this joke that I hadn't heard in years:Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to
convert to Catholicism or ..."
The interesting thing about the gifts (and the Persian misinterpretation of them) is it tells us something about the way Scythians think. They are a non-literate culture. They don't communicate symbolically. In the first story about the slave revolt, the Scythians realize that fighting the slaves is not as effective as simply showing them that they are slaves by snapping whips at them. The slaves are not capable of reflection on the whips as figures or symbols -- they just realize when they are treated as slaves that they are in fact slaves and not free men. The Persians don't realize that the gifts the Scythians offer are not to be taken figuratively, as are the water and earth that Persians typically ask for. The bird, the frog, the mouse, and arrows are not symbols, they are to be taken literally.
Thanks, Thomas! So because they don't have symbols, especially a written language, they can't think that way. The brain is such an interesting thing. I've heard that for ancient cultures, blue wasn't really a thing, so their brain didn't register "blue."
I wonder what other "gaps" (from our modern viewpoint) the cultures we read about in Herodotus would have; what assumptions that we take for granted wouldn't even be on their radar.
Kenneth wrote: "I wonder what other "gaps" (from our modern viewpoint) the cultures we read about in Herodotus would have; what assumptions that we take for granted wouldn't even be on their radar."
That's a great thing to think about as we're reading. It looks to me like Herodotus is going to the extreme ends of his known universe to show that the people in opposite regions exhibit opposite kinds of traits. Maybe they aren't strict dichotomies, but they tend to oppose each other.
The Scythians are in many ways the opposites of the Egyptians. Whereas the Egyptians are a very old, highly literate culture, the Scythians are young and non-literate. The Egyptians are stable, conservative, and invested in the past. They build great monuments meant to last for eternity and preserve their bodes when they die. The Scythians are just the opposite -- they are constantly on the move, they have no writing (as far as I recall) and seem to live for the moment. In the middle of a battle they are distracted by a rabbit and go chasing after it. (If that isn't the epitome of youth, I don't know what is.)
But the Scythians do have one thing in common with the Egyptians, according to Herodotus: they reject foreign customs. In this sense the Scythians and Egyptians are the opposite of the Persians and the Greeks.
Thomas wrote: As in Book Two, Herodotus begins with an enigmatic story.I had to read that section several times because it did not seem to flow logically to me in discussing the slaves & how the Scythians routed an uprising.
Kenneth wrote: I found the description of Scythian practices on those they defeat in battle (IV:64-65) absolutely fascinating. Obviously it's gruesome
Whereas Ashley found another aspect of customs uncomfortable, I find the "gruesome" descriptions of torture, mutilation, killings, and desecration of corpses found throughout the book difficult to stomach. Perhaps, as an older adult who has witnessed too much, I long for peace & civility while acknowledging differences. The carnage of war I understand is difficult to avoid, but intentional sadistic practices, I don't understand the necessity.
Kenneth wrote: Also, the Scythian gifts to Darius (IV:131-132) reminded me of this joke that I hadn't heard in years:
Good one!!!
IV: 105. Is this a mention of werewolves???
Chris wrote: "IV: 105. Is this a mention of werewolves???"I think so! In Herodotus, every page contains something I wouldn't expect...
I'm not sure if it's quite accurate to say that the ancients didn't "register" blue. I looked up the original article claiming that, and I also found some response articles arguing that the claim is nonsense. At any rate, there seems to be a diversity of opinion. But it is true that each culture divides up the color spectrum differently, some regarding green and blue as basically the same, for instance. I think our current basic divisions only go back to Isaac Newton. And a lot of cultures tend not to think of colors in as abstract a way as we do--Georgians, for instance, have distinct terms (and associated concepts) for "sky-color" and "blue," and also "carrot-color" and "orange-color" (referring to the fruit; they don't have an independent word meaning "orange").For another interesting comparison, I was recently reading David Lewis-Williams's The Mind in the Cave, and he was discussing the origins of art among homo sapiens. He pointed out that there are cultures today whose members seem incapable of recognizing two-dimensional representations. A certain social development or construction is necessary to make this leap; it's not built into the human brain as we often assume.
I personally found really interesting in this chapter Herodotus's discussions of the first attempts to circumnavigate Africa. And also his belief that nothing lay beyond India--which makes sense, I guess, given the barrier of mountains and deserts that isolated China of the time from the rest of Eurasia.
Chris wrote: "IV: 105. Is this a mention of werewolves???"And at 4.70 they drink blood. Isn't that a contradiction? :-)
Camels, asses and hares, oh my! Quite interesting, the way animals keep cropping up to disrupt the battle plans, whether as an intentional strategy as was the case with the camels & asses or purely by accident- the hare.When H discusses the sexual customs, I often think of how much the women were used to pump up men's own self-worth and respect among the people, yet one description of the Gindane women, who wear anklets which indicate the number of men she has had sex with, is a measure of her self-worth:
IV:176 the woman who has the most is esteemed the best, since she has been loved by the greatest number of men
that's a different spin on things, wouldn't you say?
H finishes off book four with quite the story on the siege & conquering of the Barcaians by the Persians. Both groups used trickery, the Barcaians more creatively in their use of the bronze "alarm". Alas, they became the enslaved peoples. Pheretime in her revenge perpetrated a savage act against those she identified as most guilty. Unfortunately for her, she apparently died a most horrible of deaths. What goes around comes around, eh?
Chris wrote: "that's a different spin on things, wouldn't you say? "Tomyris put a different spin on things too... One of the things I really admire about Herodotus is that he never shrinks from showing up our expectations. The universe of customs is as wild and varied as the animal kingdom. (Even if they are both sometimes a little dubious.)
The sections on the geography(17-58) seem to me to be more "modern" because he is describing the region's physical characteristics and the various inhabitants of the region. I like the description of snow as "feathers" falling from the sky.He is accurate about the climate in the far north as well.
The "feathers" reference is fascinating because Herodotus is telling us exactly what the Scythians say. The note in the Landmark edition is misleading when it says "By 'feathers' here Herodotus means snow." But it isn't Herodotus who is speaking here, it's the Scythians. Herodotus is acting as a reporter, and he wants to show us exactly how the Scythians speak, which might be an indication of the way they think. This might, in turn, have something to do with why the Persians were unable to defeat them.
Re: sections 110-117, the Scythians and the Amazon connection.I like the fact that the Scythians were not as bloodthirsty towards the Amazons as they were to some of the other tribes. The Amazons made the wise decision not to go live among the Scythians, since they would be so out of place there.
A bird, a mouse, a frog, and five arrows. (sec. 131-132)How does a bird resemble a horse?
Section 159. It is interesting reading of the battle with the Egyptian Apries from the other side. Herodotus' histories are detailed and full of fascinating facts. Section 187. I cannot fathom how burning a child's head would help them stay healthy.
Rosemarie wrote: "A bird, a mouse, a frog, and five arrows. (sec. 131-132)How does a bird resemble a horse?"
Good question. The Persians expect to receive earth and water as symbols of submission. Instead they get animals and arrows which are not meant as symbols at all. It shows us how differently the Scythians think. In the first four books Herodotus devotes a lot of time and effort to showing us alien cultures, and perhaps we can now see why he does this.
Darius is unable to read the Scythian "message" because the only culture he knows is his own. He makes an optimistic assumption, that the Scythians will surrender, which is faintly similar to the interpretation that Croesus makes when the oracle tells him he will "destroy a great nation." As a later Greek thinker will observe, the path to wisdom often begins with an acknowledgement of ignorance.
I have always been fascinated by creation myths. Living in Canada we learn about the First Nations' myths as well.
Different areas have different myths, but a great turtle plays a role in many of them. I would have to do more research, but nature and sky, the sun, etc. are very important in all their legends. Instead of sacrificing animals to the gods, the hunters thanked the animal they killed for food and used every single part of the animal for food, shelter, tools or clothing. The sinews were used for thread.
An interesting point in Book 4 that hasn't been mentioned yet: When Herodotus describes how the Phoenicians sailed around Libya, he says that they claimed that the sun was on their right. Herodotus says he does not find this credible, but this detail is remarkable evidence that they really did circumnavigate Africa. Some sailors, those Phoenicians.
I noticed that detail as well. To sail into the unknown to trade and explore, then to return safely, took a great deal of skill and determination. Herodotus also makes sceptical comments about an ocean that goes around the world. I wonder how many geographical discoveries and historical events were lost because those who chronicling them considered them untrue or too fanciful to take seriously.
Herodotus doesn't accept the Phoenicians' claim about the sun being on the right when they sailed around Libya (the African continent) because he doesn't accept the idea that the earth is round. This site provides a handy way to visualize the path of the sun south of the equator, or from anywhere. Just move the target around and you can see how the path of the sun changes from that point. www.suncalc.net
Patrice wrote: "Using whips to convince the men that they are slaves...first it made me think of Aristotle. He said that slaves were born to be slaves. How do we know? Just look at how slavishly they behave. I wonder if that kind of thinking was behind this method of getting control? "The slaves' reaction to the whips seem similar to the way that the Scythians react when they see the hare darting across the space between their army and the Persians. They chase after the hare like animals who have no self-control, not free thinking men. It's been a while since I read Aristotle's Politics, but Herodotus seems to show the absurdity of such men in these examples. And yet... the Persians were unable to master them.
Kenneth wrote: "I found the description of Scythian practices on those they defeat in battle (IV:64-65) absolutely fascinating. Obviously it's gruesome, terribly gruesome and inhumane. But the idea that they would..."I also was struck in this section by how brutal life was at the time. Blinding slaves, using skulls of conquered enemies as drinking cups, but also beheading men just on the say-so of six soothsayers (the first three divvying up the dead man's proceeds, and I bet secretly sharing them with the second set so all the soothsayers live and prosper and only the accused, whether falsely or not, dies), killing soothsayers whose soothsaying is contradicted by later soothsayers (and killing them by burning to death, one of the most painful deaths imaginable), all the sons of these soothsayers being killed to just because their parents were contradicted by other soothsayers (the sins of the father, in spades), when a king dies killing his concubine and some of his servants, strangling and gutting fifty servants, and on and on. Even beyond the brutality of war, it was a remarkably brutal time even for those not involved in warfare.
Thomas wrote: "It looks to me like Herodotus is going to the extreme ends of his known universe to show that the people in opposite regions exhibit opposite kinds of traits. Maybe they aren't strict dichotomies, but they tend to oppose each other."And I think it's also important that he treats each culture with respect, reporting on it fairly and objectively without criticizing or condemning even the most un-Greek customs. Oh, sure, he does at times say "they say this but I don't believe it," but he never belittles or put down the other cultures (or at least I haven't seen him do it so far, though there's still plenty of book to go!)
Patrice wrote: "Now, I read in Herodotus about the snake goddess! .."According to Vandiver, for a long time this story was used as an example of Herodotus being wrong or making things up or being gullible in what he reported, that there was no such mythical being. But modern archaeologists have discovered statuary in the Scythian region of figures half human half snake. Once again, Herodotus is vindicated.
Chris wrote: "IV: 105. Is this a mention of werewolves???"And, did you notice in 4.75 that they "smoked" marijuana, by burning the seeds and inhaling the vapor, making them "howl, awed and elated by the vapor"?
I read it but didn't pay particular attention, but hemp has been around for a long time--and it is a versatile plant.
Everyman wrote: " ...but also beheading men just on the say-so of six soothsayers (the first three divvying up the dead man's proceeds, and I bet secretly sharing them with the second set so all the soothsayers live and prosper and only the accused, whether falsely or not, dies), killing soothsayers whose soothsaying is contradicted by later soothsayers"More than any of the other cultures Herodotus discusses, the Scythians seem to be the least able to differentiate image from reality. I'm starting to think that this is a major theme in the Histories -- what seems vs. what is, and what someone says vs. the truth of the matter. There is a lot of this kind of analysis in Plato, though on a much higher, more abstract level. But I wonder if that line of thinking starts with the observations of Herodotus, albeit in a much more visceral way.
Thomas wrote: "I'm starting to think that this is a major theme in the Histories -- what seems vs. what is, and what someone says vs. the truth of the matter. There is a lot of this kind of analysis in Plato, though on a much higher, more abstract level. But I wonder if that line of thinking starts with the observations of Herodotus, albeit in a much more visceral way. "If that's the case, to what extent do you think Herodotus was aware of it? He does at times (relatively often for a work of history) tell us what people say but tell us also that he doesn't believe it, but is that what you mean? Or are you thinking that there is an underlying issue of what seems vs what is which Herodotus isn't conscious of?
Everyman wrote: "If that's the case, to what extent do you think Herodotus was aware of it?."Good question. I'm not sure if Herodotus was aware of it because he does not comment on truth or semblance directly, except in those cases where he says he does not believe a story, but my suspicion is that he was aware of it. What strikes me is how often the stories in these early books revolve around the power of speech and mistaken appearances, at least in the case of the Persians and the Greeks. Cambyses sees the Egyptians celebrating a religious feast and thinks they are mocking him after his defeat in Ethiopia. Oroites kills Polycrates because another Persian insults him and questions Oroites's manhood, which had nothing to do with Polycrates of course. Just words. The words of the oracle carry huge weight despite their ambiguity. And so on and so forth. There is so much speech involved in Herodotus's stories, and so often does the story's plot rely on the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of that speech that I think he must have been aware of the reality vs. appearance issue on some level.
When the first Europeans came to the New World, they certainly misunderstood what they saw, and the people that were already living here did not understand the newcomers either, so your comment makes a lot of sense, Patrice. My family emigrated to Canada when I was a little girl and it took my parents years to feel at home. Herodotus must have been constantly travelling, all the while being inundated with information, and then writing or dictating the stories. He must have had a great deal of stamina.
I think there are two primary ways of reading Herodotus: the first approach is that he is a reporter who is simply writing down what he sees and hears verbatim, without regard for the truth of the matter (except on those rare occasions where he gives us his personal opinion.) The second is that he is a poet who tells stories in a certain way, who includes some details and not others, in order to make a point or come to a conclusion, ultimately about the cause of the Persian War. Herodotus is both a reporter and a poet, of course. At times, especially in the account of Egypt, he wears the reporter hat and purports to tell the facts. But at other times he is more of a poet than a reporter. Without a doubt, Herodotus made up most of the speeches he relates, and in that way he is a poet. Both approaches require some interpretation -- even "objective" reporting comes from a certain point of view -- but I am starting to think that in the larger scheme Herodotus is more important as a poet than as a reporter. Otherwise I think his work would just be a curiosity, and would probably not have survived the test of time.
Thomas wrote: ... Without a doubt, Herodotus made up most of the speeches he relates, and in that way he is a poet. Both approaches require some interpretation -- even "objective" reporting comes from a certain point of view -- but I am starting to think that in the larger scheme Herodotus is more important as a poet than as a reporter.I was just reading an essay in the Norton Critical Edition ("The Purpose and Method of History"- Thomas MaCaulay) that leaps on Herodotus' use of dialogue as proof that he took poetic license.
"There are passages in Herodotus nearly as long as acts of Shakespeare, in which everything is told dramatically, and in which the narrative serves only purpose of stage directions. It is possible, no doubt, that the substance of some real conversations may have been reported to the historian. But events which, if they ever happened, happened in ages and nations so remote that the particulars could never have been known to him, are related in the greatest minuteness of detail. We have all that Candaules said to Gyges, and all that passed between Astyages and Harpagus... it is impossible to narrate without inventing." (hm... fathering some lies, perhaps?)
As I understand it, Thucydides and Herodotus differed in this respect.
Patrice wrote: "Omg no! Thucydides invented long beautiful speeches that he admits he put into people's mouths. What they would or should have said..."My mistake, there is so much to learn!
Rosemarie wrote: Herodotus must have been constantly travelling, all the while being inundated with information, and then writing or dictating the stories. He must have had a great deal of stamina.."And there's no evidence, as far as the sources I've read have said, that he knew any language other than Greek. So he was constantly relying on interpreters, which adds another layer of separation between him and the cultures he was reporting on.
Thomas wrote: "...I am starting to think that in the larger scheme Herodotus is more important as a poet than as a reporter. Otherwise I think his work would just be a curiosity, and would probably not have survived the test of time. ..."Well, to an extent I agree with you. But it's more than just that he's a poet that made him survive, I think. Yes, he makes up speeches, but he's still in many respects a very accurate reporter on societies and civilizations that perhaps weren't that well known to Greeks or to later scholars. It's not just the poetry that matters, I think, but what the poetry is about is equally important. (As we see, for example, in the fact that the only major epics to have survived were also about a very important event, the Trojan war; there were plenty of other epics being sung by Greek bards that didn't survive, perhaps because they weren't as good, but also perhaps because they didn't deal with material that people believed was important and deserved survival).
I suppose my question is whether the straight "reporting" that Herodotus does has meaning or not. He goes into remarkable depth about the Egyptians and the Scythians, despite the fact that they don't play a great role, or any role at all, in the later books. Is there a point to the logoi on the Egyptians and Scythians? How do these sections fit into the scheme of the book as a whole? I realize this is a question for later, after we have read the rest of the book, but it might be interesting to keep it in mind as we go along. Not that I'm sure there is an answer...
Incidentally, most undergraduates who read Herodotus at all only read portions of the Histories. I know that was the case for us at St. John's. It's only now, because we read works in their entirety in this group, that we can think about this kind of question. I think it's great that we do this.
Thomas wrote: "Incidentally, most undergraduates who read Herodotus at all only read portions of the Histories. I know that was the case for us at St. John's. "I had forgotten that, but it makes sense since some of this seems really new to me.
For those who care, the parts that SJC freshmen read this year on the Annapolis campus, over three seminars (Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday) are:
Herodotus:
History
I; II 50-53, 112-120;
III 37-38, 66-87
Herodotus:
History
V, 105; VI, 48-120;
VII (entire)
Herodotus:
History
VIII; IX
For those few (if any) interested in even more, the full seminar readings for this year for all classes are:
First semester Annapolis
http://www.sjc.edu/files/6514/4553/97...
Second semester Annapolis
http://www.sjc.edu/files/7414/4466/64...
Santa Fe both semesters
http://www.sjc.edu/files/6914/3690/47...
They are very similar, but not identical; each campus's faculty have slightly different ideas on what should be included.
Patrice wrote: "It's interesting that in all his far flung travels he always found someone who knew Greek to translate. ."Unless he took a translator with him when he visited a region.
Only three books behind now! But before I move on, a few final comments on Book Four.Just as proof that sex gender role discrimination is nothing new, we have 162 "at last Euelthon sent out to her a present of a golden spindle and distaff, with wool also upon it: and when Pheretime uttered again the same saying about this present, Euelthon said that such things as this were given as gifts to women and not an army. "
And as further proof that Oracles are often misunderstood, Arkesilaos dies "having missed the meaning of the oracle." 164
I wonder whether anybody every got the meaning of an oracle right the first time!
More seriously, starting at 168 I was fascinated by the differences in customs among all the tribes of Libya, thought they live relatively close together. There were quite significant differences among tribes all of which lived in the same general area. Customs of food, of hair styles, of ways of burying their dead, and on and on, are remarkably different.
Some of the marriage customs of the tribes were particularly interesting (though also a bit disturbing from a contemporary perspective.) So droit de seigneur was an ancient, not merely a medieval, custom, eh? But this casual sharing of wives is a bit much, especially passing the bride on from guest to guest -- but at least she gets wedding presents for it.
All though this section I had to think back to Darius in 3.38 claiming that every society thought its customs best, no matter how disgusting the might seem to other societies. Herodotus is really sticking home for me the reality that there is almost no pattern of living that is even remotely universal in the history of humanity.
One final quickie:When I read in 1.183 about "the Cave-dwelling Ethiopians are the swiftest of foot of all men about whom we hear report made" I couldn't help thinking of the Boston Marathon this year being won by Ethopians in both the men's and women's races. Herodotus strikes again!
Everyman wrote: "Just as proof that sex gender role discrimination is nothing new, we have 162 "at last Euelthon sent out to her a present of a golden spindle and distaff, with wool also upon it: and when Pheretime uttered again the same saying about this present, Euelthon said that such things as this were given as gifts to women and not an army.."And yet Herodotus does tell us of some exceptional women warriors -- Tomyris, queen of the Massagetai who is responsible for Cyrus's demise; the Amazons; and Artemisia, a Dorian naval commander in the Persian fleet -- you will meet her in book 7.
Ashley wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Omg no! Thucydides invented long beautiful speeches that he admits he put into people's mouths. What they would or should have said..."My mistake, there is so much to learn!"
But it is also true that Thucydides did not include much conversation - aside from the orations, almost all of his writing is driven by actions. He will discuss possible motivations, and sometimes conveys the gist of what may have been said in private, but does not go into nearly the level of conversational detail that Herodotus does.
It is also thought that he witnessed at least a few of the orations, and spoke with people who were present for some others.
I actually just finished reading him last night, and am in a sort of awe at the sweep of his narrative, and of insight he is able to convey using such dry language. Very impressive.
In many ways, this book mirrors Book Two about the Egyptians: just as the Nile is described as an inverted Danube, the Scythians are similar to the Egyptians, but in reverse. Herodotus describes Egypt and the Egyptians as the oldest and most stable of people; the Scythians call themselves the youngest of people, and like their rivers, they are in constant motion.
Like Book Two, Book Four breaks down into four sections:
I. Scythian origins and the tribes of Europe, (4.1 - 4.31)
II. Scythian customs and beliefs, (4.32 - 4.83)
III. The history of Darius's invasion, (4.83-4.144)
IV. The origins of Cyrene and the tribes of Libya, (4.145 - 4.205)
As in Book Two, Herodotus begins with an enigmatic story. It is Scythian custom to blind their slaves "to conform with the process by which they obtain the milk that they drink." This process is described, but does it make any sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that they blind their slaves to keep them from running away?
Herodotus goes on to say that during the 28 years that the Scythians were in Media that the Scythian women "resorted to consorting with the slaves," and subsequently raised a new generation of men. When these young men realize that they will be enslaved like their fathers upon the Scythians' return, they prepare to defend themselves and fight the Scythians. The Scythians are unable to defeat the new generation by force of arms, so they come up with a strange strategy:
"...let us stop using spears and arrows and take up instead our horsewhips and advance upon them with those. For as long as they saw us holding weapons, they considered themselves our equals as sired by men who were our equals. But when they see us wielding whips instead of weapons, they will realize that they are our slaves; and once they become aware of that, they will not stand their ground."
And of course it works. The young men abandon all thought of battle and scatter. Why?